Commentary

Soulia: Are taxpayer-funded $550K “affordable apartments” affordable?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Is Affordable Housing in VT Affordable? Part 2. Burlington’s new Post Apartments cost about $549,000 per apartment, within $1,000 of West Rutland’s Marble Village. By FYIVT’s count, about 98 percent of the money was public.

BURLINGTON — Post Apartments, a 38-unit building at 176 South Winooski Avenue celebrated at a September ribbon cutting headlined by Sen. Bernie Sanders, cost about $24 million to build, according to its nonprofit developers.

Setting aside the building’s ground-floor commercial space, that works out to roughly $549,000 per apartment. That is nearly identical to the $548,626 per unit spent on the 24-unit Marble Village Apartments in West Rutland, which FYIVT examined last year.

The Champlain Housing Trust (CHT) and Evernorth developed the five-story building on the former site of Howard Plant VFW Post 782. It has eight efficiencies, 26 one-bedroom and four two-bedroom apartments. The VFW and the Chittenden County Community Justice Center share 6,800 square feet on the first floor.

Estimates rose from $10 million to $24 million

Applications filed with the City of Burlington show the project’s estimated cost climbed repeatedly:

  • FY2022 city application: $10.2 million for 30 units, or $340,766 per unit.
  • November 2022 application: $18.2 million for 38 units plus commercial space, or $416,561 per residential unit.
  • 2024 groundbreaking: $22 million, as reported by the Burlington Free Press.
  • 2026 completion: about $24 million, per CHT.

The scope grew between the first two estimates, adding eight apartments and the commercial space.

Construction estimates filed with the city also varied. CHT’s November 2022 budget put hard construction costs at $14.5 million, including contingency and site work. The January 2023 zoning permit application listed an estimated construction cost of $12 million, and a 2023 building permit listed $9.79 million.

CHT has attributed part of the cost to the site, which sits next to a gas station and a decommissioned sewer ravine. About $1.6 million in brownfields financing went to soil cleanup. A CHT spokesperson told Seven Days the trust spent seven times as much on soil remediation and development costs as at its 40-unit Cambrian Rise building.

“Redeveloping a small site in the middle of Burlington doesn’t come without its challenges and costs,” CHT CEO Michael Monte said at the opening.

About 98 percent public money

CHT says more than 20 sources funded the project, including:

  • Vermont Housing & Conservation Board: about $9 million — $6.9 million in federal ARPA funds, $1.4 million from the state budget and $595,000 from the National Housing Trust Fund.
  • Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: more than $6.4 million in equity, invested through Evernorth’s fund by TD Bank, plus $463,500 in state tax credit equity.
  • City of Burlington: about $3 million, including a $1 million federal ARPA grant.
  • Brownfields cleanup: about $1.6 million.
  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: $1 million in Community Project funding secured by Sanders.
  • NeighborWorks America: $365,000.

By FYIVT’s count, about $21.8 million of the $24 million, or about 91 percent, came from grants, deferred public loans or tax credits. Nearly all of the rest is a permanent loan from the Vermont Housing Finance Agency (VHFA), a state-created lender. It is repaid from rents, which include federal voucher payments and the city’s lease for its Community Justice Center. At least part of that repayment is itself public money: the 10 voucher units and the city’s lease are paid with tax dollars. The 2022 budget also listed about $96,000 in utility energy incentives. The only clearly private contribution is the VFW’s purchase of its ground-floor condo, listed at $505,000 in the 2022 budget, about 2 percent of the final cost. CHT paid the VFW $990,000 for the land and building in July 2024, according to city property records. Counting the VHFA loan and ratepayer-funded incentives as public, as FYIVT’s Marble Village analysis did, Post’s public share is about 98 percent.

VHFA records show the project received $757,051 a year in federal tax credits. Over the standard 10-year credit period, that is about $7.57 million in forgone federal revenue — roughly $1.1 million more than the equity the credits raised.

Rent subsidy for 10 units

Ten apartments carry project-based Section 8 vouchers from the Burlington Housing Authority (BHA), which is funded almost entirely by HUD. Tenants in those units pay about 30 percent of their income; the voucher covers the rest of the rent. Nine apartments are set aside for people leaving homelessness.

Other rents start at $1,160 a month with utilities included. CHT says the rents are affordable for single-person households earning up to $62,400.

The annual value of the voucher contract is not public. FYIVT estimate: BHA reports paying about $20 million a year in rent subsidy for more than 2,500 households, or roughly $8,000 per household. At that average, Post’s 10 vouchers would cost about $80,000 a year, or about $1.6 million over 20 years.

Ten of the 38 apartments, about 26 percent, receive federal voucher payments. Tenants in the other 28 apartments pay rent from their own income unless they bring their own vouchers or state rental assistance; that count is not public. As a result, the share of the building’s rent revenue that comes from public sources is also not public.

Side by side with Marble Village

The two projects differ in nearly every physical respect. Marble Village is a three-story wood-frame building on a small-town Main Street. Post Apartments is a five-story downtown building on a contaminated site, with commercial space. Their per-unit costs landed within $1,000 of each other.

| | Marble Village (West Rutland) | Post Apartments (Burlington) | | — | — | — | | Apartments | 24 | 38 | | Total cost | $13.17 million | \~$24 million (incl. commercial) | | Cost per apartment | $548,626 | \~$549,000\ | | Cost per sq. ft. | $615 | \~$573\ | | Public share of funding | 98–100%\ | \~98%\ | | Units for people leaving homelessness | 5 | 9 | | Built-in voucher units | None reported | 10 |

\FYIVT estimates. Post’s per-apartment figure applies the 87 percent residential share from the 2022 budget to the final cost; that budget priced residential and commercial space at nearly the same cost per square foot ($375 and $374). Its per-square-foot figure divides $24 million by the 41,900 square feet of habitable space listed on the city zoning permit; Marble Village’s figure comes from its Act 250 filing, and the two may not be measured the same way.*

Both figures track the statewide trend. VHFA told legislators in 2025 that the average apartment in its competitive 9 percent tax credit program cost more than $530,000 in 2024, up from $285,000 in 2018.

Estimated public cost: about $555,000 to $598,000 per apartment

Because the building includes commercial space, FYIVT separated the apartments’ share of public money. Housing tax credits can only support residential space, so their full value is counted toward the apartments. Other public funds are split by floor area; the apartments account for 87 percent of the building’s square footage.

  • Direct public capital, residential share: about $13 million (87 percent of about $15 million)
  • Federal tax credits, forgone revenue over 10 years: about $7.57 million
  • State tax credits: about $515,000, assuming a five-year credit
  • Subtotal: about $21.1 million, or about $555,000 per apartment
  • Estimated voucher subsidy for 10 units over 20 years: about $1.6 million
  • With voucher subsidy: about $22.7 million, or about $598,000 per apartment

Not all of the money is a grant. Part of the brownfields funding was a state loan, and much of the VHCB and city money was structured as zero-interest deferred loans. The voucher figure is a projection, not a contract amount. Counting all public money for the whole building, including the commercial space, the total is about $24.7 million.

The city’s property database currently lists the parcel as tax exempt for the 2025-26 and 2026-27 tax years, with Champlain Housing Trust as owner of record. It was not clear as of publication whether that status will change now that the building is complete.

For comparison, FYIVT estimates the market value of a comparable new downtown apartment at about $270,000. That is based on a $2,050 asking rent for a one-bedroom at a nearby private building, a 60 percent operating margin and a 5.5 percent capitalization rate.

CHT has said the site’s costs would likely have made it unappealing to a private developer.

What isn’t public

Several figures needed for a complete accounting were not publicly available as of publication:

  • The project’s final cost certification, which would show which costs grew between the $18.2 million estimate and the final $24 million.
  • The value of BHA’s voucher contract for the 10 subsidized units.
  • The terms of the Community Justice Center’s lease and the amount the city spent on fitting out that space, listed as “CJC Fit-up” among the city’s funding sources.

Figures marked as FYIVT estimates are calculated from public records and are noted where they appear.

Follow the money yourself

FYIVT Finder

Search Vermont legislative testimony, city records and meeting documents. Try Post Apartments, Champlain Housing Trust, Housing Trust Fund or low income housing tax credit.

FYIVT Bill Wrangler: S.127

Vermont’s 2025 housing law (Act 69): its history, amendments and recorded votes.

FYIVT Civic Radar

Upcoming city council, housing board and other public meetings statewide, organized by county. Housing money is approved in meetings like these before the ribbon cutting.

Sources


Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Categories: Commentary, Housing

1 reply »

  1. Governments are the developers and the taxpayers take the lose. Now, who are the insiders making all of the money on these deals???? Comment from Richard Day.

All topics and opinions welcome! No mocking or personal criticism of other commenters. No profanity, explicitly racist or sexist language allowed. Real, full names are now required. All comments without real full names will be unapproved or trashed.